|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Who's side are they on?
Posted on: December 25, 2009 - 11:31am
 Offline
Who's side are they on?
What do you make of it? I currently find myself embroiled in debate with nominal Atheists seemingly spouting the most convoluted Pro-Life apologetics! http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php?topic=8103.0
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
Just checked my atheists manual and don't see "pro-choice" there.
Context, much? Don't bruise your index clicking the link! No manual will spell out that connection for you, either.
What is the point you are trying to raise?
I believe its "Without religion, Pro-life Atheists have no leg to stand on"
... which, i think i agree with
What Would Kharn Do?
True, but no, he has successfully derailed my topic.
You could argue a zygote has a potential intellect that should be taken into account. Where does it end, though? With an egg? A sperm? I agree with you Aaron that it would be nice to have the moment of life defined but pro-lifers of any persuasion will always argue that point right back to the instant of conception. It's a tough topic.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
The Catholics argue it back to the moment of ejaculation.
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
Well catholics are bunch of complete wankers so no surprises there...funny the egg gets ignored.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Indeed, many argue a prior history of the soul, in reincarnation or in Heaven, but even aside therefrom, does every gamete have the right to recombination? Does every morsel of food have the right to be eaten only by pregnant women? Does every wine maker and pornographer have the right to inspire only unprotected sex? Before potential, is there potential potential, and potential potential potential, all the way back to Telos, or final cause, being the mysterious intent of God? Pro-Lifers argue for the moment of conception, as then for the first time, in the zygote, all complete readiness has come together, that is initial substance and complete instructions. In other words: that conception occurs at the moment of conception! What brilliant tautology.
The gravest issue, however, is of this poison of dementia as has seemingly infected the very law of the land. That is what we argue over here: http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php?topic=8103.0 in regard to my petition here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/surgeon-general-please-break-the-healthcare-deadlock Please sign.
Rather than debating abortion - which is a personal tragedy that only king size ASSHOLES will be "opinionated" about unless they are involved in the problem - I would recommend some education on the subject of contraception.
It really isn't that hard to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
Absolutely! Similarly, automobile accidents are generally avoidable, and a personal tragedy that only an asshole would argue about. So let's never consider better hospitals and ambulances, because accident prevention is always best.
I mean, for another example, when you get a cavity or abscess from not brushing or flossing thoroughly enough, the proper way to accept responsibility is to refuse all dental care and to die needlessly in agony. Everybody knows that!
Sarcasm was noted, the first time around
What Would Kharn Do?
Now try taking note of my actual intended topic! For that matter, where is the promised activism on this forum?
For the record, I am of the opinion that the one who's pregnant - in most cases the woman - should have the executive power in this issue.
I.e. it is a woman's issue that I - being a man - do not feel comfortable holding any "opinion" about.
My contribution to the problem complex is to make sure that I wear one of those little rubber thingys whenever I send my Little Lord Fountleroy out on cave expeditions.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
But what you have just expressed, is an opinion. Furthermore, as regards responsible prophylaxis: http://www.FoolQuest.com/fooltrek_faq/fooltrek_faq_III_basics_b_sex_.htm#alert
I've already said my piece on abortion. I don't like it. I do have a leg to stand on, but I'm not going to rehash the discussion.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Catholics don't believe it starts at ejaculation. just ftr.
I believe in rolling rights. In the beginning, the rights all lie with the mother. As the fetus approaches being able to survive outside the mother's body, their rights should be taken more and more into account. When viability occurs (23 weeks) the fetus should have as many rights as the mother.
This argument assumes that the fetus is viable normally, not born with ancephaly (there is no brain apart from a stem) or hydrancephaly (again, no brain but a huge amount of csf) or otherwise incompatible with life. In cases where the fetus is doomed, honestly, whatever the mother needs to do to get her through it, I really can't argue with.
"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne
Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!
SapphireMind, do you mean that you are ready to sign my petition?
http://ehealthforum.com/health/do-aborted-babies-go-to-heaven-or-hell-t201791.html
Do click the above link: When you only see the repressive antirational touchy-feely mendacity spouted by WOLF, perhaps then finally you'll all become angry enough to sign my petition for a good old scientific put up or shut up.
I'm not going to repeat myself.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I don't think online petitions do jack nor shit. I prefer contact with my legislators.
Have you discussed the content of that link? I must have missed it.
By all means, do phone in to the office of the Surgeon General Regina Benjamin directly. I have. But if you don't mind, then do sign the petition with a comment making a record of your call and telling how it went.
The link itself? No. The subject the link is based on? Yes. You missed it. It was probably more than a year ago.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I would disagree.
"The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. During this developmental event, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others."
Source
I would consider this a pro-life argument that invokes no religion whatsoever. While the argument has holes, it is not religious based.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
Technically, perhaps, the above arument only evokes Aristotelian potentiality. But can one call that a leg to stand upon? And indeed, without Teleology, which is Theistic, what becomes of the Aristotelian notions of essence and potentiality?
Note, also, typical abuse of the very word: 'life,' such as by implication, to sneak soul and potentiality in via the back door. Literally speaking, if life only means biological activity, then the argument cited above in the previous post, doesn't even argue against abortion at all.
Not to mention, incidentally, that life, biological activity, is continuous all throughout the entire process of procreation, generation by generation, actually beginning in the primordial ooze with the transition from prebiotic evolution into biological evolution proper. Semantics aside, conception, so called, actually being no more than the inception of the development of a new individual of the species, is another matter entirely.
Then might I preveail upon you for a link thereto? I wonder if you really even back then already anticipate current events and adress all the points I make. Indeed, that would be most prescient.
You are presuming, somehow, that discussing abortion is new? Lol.
It's in the forum somewhere. If I stumble across it I'll post the link, but I'm not going to search for it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
No, in related digression as you had mentioned condoms, and I responded with a link.
... but it has nothing to do with abortion, womens dominion, or baby killing.
Great! genetics, cells, uniqueness... every snow flake is unique, doesnt mean i give a shit about rolling them up into a ball and throwing it at some one.
(note to self, hit someone with a fetus-ball)
The most immediate answer that sprung to my mind was, "So fucking what?"
And THAT i am willing to stand by
What Would Kharn Do?
Oops, sorry, my edit seems to have crossed with your reply.
Well I think the argument would be that rights applied to a human would apply here, since the argument is that the genetic code is what defines that thing as a human. Thus arguments regarding abortion etc can be made.
Not really. The argument would be, simply, that the unique genetic code is what defines something as a 'human' and thus constitutional rights should apply (in the case of abortion, the right to life). It is strictly a way to argue how constitutional rights could be applied to an unborn baby, and does so by ascribing the definition of a human in the argument. My point is that it is not a religious argument.
Also, anyone will think that someone's argument that goes against theirs has 'no leg to stand on' since they don't agree with it. All I am saying is that as far arguments against abortion go, it has a better basis than the religious arguments.
Disclaimer: I do not subscribe to this argument, I just wanted to provide an example of non-religious pro-life argumentation.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
But v4ultingbassist, the pseudoscientific genetic argument is a religious argument, indeed specifically, the pseudoscientific genetic argument, belongs to the category of long standing traditional slippery obfuscatory religious propaganda well known as: Apologetics.
At face value it may seem perfectly secular, but that interpretation breaks down immediately: Because, if it's the DNA that defines humanity, then your toenail clippings, never mind a living cultured skin graft, are all members of the club! Can that really be what they mean by introducing the pseudoscientific genetic argument? No. When pressed, they will deny it and introduce further qualifiers. Ultimately, the pseudoscientific genetic argument is merely cover for slipping in the soul, essence and potentially, in via the back door, by implication, again to the moment of fertilization or conception.
They talk out of both sides of their mouths. And we ought to see through them.
All vague unsupported supposition, unless recognized for what it is: religious innuendo.
Do you think they're atheists?
Atheism may refer to belief or lack thereof. Thus, given any possibility of doublethink mendacity, of self-deception rather than just bald faced lying, I really cannot say. But the message is clearly not sincerely Atheist. A typical black propaganda opp.
White propaganda is propaganda truthfully representing it's source, as for example, government "information resources," whereas black propaganda is faked, one way or another, in oder to make your enemy look bad or confuse whatever the issue, and grey propaganda is ambiguous as to source.
Which actually brings us neatly back to my intended topic of nominal Atheists so completely taken in and regurgitating doubletalk apologetics.
1] There's no message that is "sincerly atheist" other than saying there exists no Gods
2] There's no such thing as a nominal atheist
All manner of positions can be either honest or disingenuous.
Sure there is. Any semblance whatsoever at all, may be more precisely true or else howsoever qualified.
Like I just said, you see anything wrong with the argument, and then it needs religion to have a solid ground. It isn't standing on religion, you are saying that the holes in the argument could be filled by religion to make the argument better, but that is your doing, not theirs. Their argument, however imperfect, is NOT based on religion. You just took an example as to why it breaks down, and why it breaks down is not because it invokes the supernatural.
Because, if it's the DNA that defines humanity, then your toenail clippings, never mind a living cultured skin graft, are all members of the club!
In case you were unaware, they actually are a part of you. That's the argument, those things are unique to you, so they would fall under the category of 'you' and not somebody else. This is the argument's attempt to differentiate human life. The problem arises with twins, not parts of your body.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
Be that as it may, what would you admit as an example of implying God whilst pretending not to?
You keep invoking god, not me. Things can be unique without a deity. Just because YOU think this argument is a conspiracy to front the religious view of things doesn't mean that it is.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
Then answer my question.
Are you retarded? I can't answer your question. In order to answer your question I would have to accept your position in this discussion, which I clearly don't. Actually, my whole point is that god is irrelevant, so your question is too.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
Are you actually claiming that it would be not only illogical, but actually impossible, to imply one thing out of one side of one's mouth, while denying it out if the other?
YOU are claiming that the argument is saying one thing but implying another. It it entirely YOUR opinion that the implication is even there. You have not addressed the points I made and instead you are trying to force me into accepting your view that the argument implies god. I've already said why it doesn't. You have failed show otherwise and instead are asking me retarded questions.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
Look, you don't accept my agument, regardless how obvious it sems to me, and so, I fall back upon Socratic Method, checking each claim, each stage of my reasoning with you, one step at a time. And in order to show a particular instance, first I need to establish the generality. For example, it will be difficult to argue that Fred is a Lichtensteinian, if you are convinced that the country of Lichtenstein is entirely mythical to begin with. So please do answer my previous question:
Are you actually claiming that it would be not only illogical, but actually impossible, to imply one thing out of one side of one's mouth, while denying it out if the other?
I'm trying to tell you that that is irrelevant. "The argument would be, simply, that the unique genetic code is what defines something as a 'human'" is what I said. How does this invoke god in any way?
My Website About Roller Coaster Design